1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’), seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 99 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubnagar.
2. The petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 12 are facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in the aforesaid Calendar Case. Petitioner No.1 is husband of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are parents and petitioner Nos.4 to 10 are siblings and distant relatives of Accused No.1 and petitioner Nos.11 and 12 are alleged marriage mediators.
3. Heard Mr. K.B. Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.K.S. Chetanaa, learned counsel, representing Mr.S.Praveen Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of respondent No.2/de facto complainant with petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 was solemnized on 27.03.2022 through marriage mediators, who represented petitioner No.1 as a suitable bridegroom. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, the family of the de facto complainant gave Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, 32 tulas of gold ornaments and incurred marriage expenses of Rs.3,00,000/. According to the de facto complainant, from the very second day of the marriage, Accused No.1 subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and failed to maintain a normal marital relationship. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 was suffering from Bipolar Disorder and had undergone a vasectomy, and that these facts were deliberately concealed by Accused No.1, his family members and the marriage mediators prior to the marriage. The de facto complainant further alleged that Accused No.1 and the other accused subjected her to harassment and abuse by demanding additional dowry and, ultimately, drove her out of the matrimonial home. She also alleged that, during a Panchayat convened in the presence of elders, the mental illness of Accused No.1 was admitted and that she was advised to permit Accused No.1 to contract a second marriage. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a crime was registered and, upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complaint is false, frivolous and has been instituted only with a view to harass the petitioners. It is submitted that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized without any demand for, or acceptance of, dowry. It is further contended that respondent No.2, being a Family Relations and Psychology Counsellor, voluntarily married petitioner No.1 after she had been informed, prior to the marriage, that he had suffered from mild Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, which, according to the petitioners, would not affect the marital relationship.
5.2. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home within a short period after the marriage and thereafter lodged the present complaint as a false case against the petitioners. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner Nos.4 to 12 have been falsely implicated, notwithstanding that they were residing separately at different places and had never shared a common household with the de facto complainant. According to the petitioners, the complaint as well as the charge sheet contains only omnibus and vague allegations and does not attribute any specific overt act to these petitioners. It is also contended that even distant relatives and the marriage mediators have been unnecessarily arrayed as accused. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations relating to demand for dowry are not supported by any credible material and that the charge sheet has been filed mechanically, without a proper and effective investigation. On these grounds, it is contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance upon Achin Guptha v. State of Haryana and another ((2025) 3 SCC 756), submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband cannot be sustained merely on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, in the absence of specific overt acts attributable to them. Reliance is also placed upon Geddam Jhansi and another v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, and Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others v. State of Telangana and another, 2024 INSC 953, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that mere relationship with the husband is not sufficient to prosecute family members for an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and that vague and omnibus allegations, without specific attribution, are insufficient to sustain such proceedings.
5.4. It is, therefore, submitted that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law, warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings.
6.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State, and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/de facto complainant submit that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 27.03.2022 through marriage mediators, who had represented petitioner No.1 as a suitable bridegroom. It is contended that the petitioners misrepresented that petitioner No.1 was a software engineer residing in Bangalore and deliberately concealed, prior to the marriage, his alleged bipolar disorder and the fact that he had undergone a vasectomy. It is further submitted that, at the time of marriage, dowry was presented, apart from the marriage expenses incurred by the family of respondent No.2. According to respondent No.2, immediately after the marriage, petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. It is alleged that the marriage remained unconsummated on account of the condition of petitioner No.1, that additional dowry was demanded, and that respondent No.2 was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home. It is further contended that the investigation culminated in the filing of a charge sheet based upon the statements of witnesses and documentary material collected during investigation, which disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Learned counsel submits that the allegations raise disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and, therefore, cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings instituted for quashing of the criminal case. On these grounds, it is contended that this Court ought not to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under its extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage.
6.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, placing reliance upon Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 671, submits that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It is contended that, at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is required only to examine whether the allegations, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and that the Court ought not to conduct a mini-trial or undertake an appreciation of the evidentiary material at that stage.
6.3. Further, placing reliance upon Manik B v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2540, learned counsel submits that questions as to whether material facts relating to the medical or mental condition of a spouse were deliberately concealed prior to marriage, and whether such alleged concealment amounts to cheating, are essentially disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence during trial. According to learned counsel, such questions ordinarily cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. On the aforesaid grounds, pray for dismissal of the petition.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
8. A careful perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the allegations arise from the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, wherein she alleged that her marriage with Accused No.1 was solemnized on 27.03.2022 through the intervention of marriage mediators, who had represented him to be a suitable bridegroom. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, cash, gold ornaments and marriage expenses were provided as dowry. According to the prosecution, immediately after the marriage, Accused No.1 subjected the de facto complainant to physical and mental cruelty, failed to maintain a normal marital relationship, and deliberately concealed, prior to the marriage, his alleged bipolar disorder and the fact that he had undergone a vasectomy. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 demanded additional dowry, subjected the de facto complainant to harassment, and drove her out of the matrimonial home. The prosecution also alleges that the marriage mediators intentionally facilitated the marriage despite allegedly being aware of Accused No.1’s medical condition.
9. The statements of LWs 1 to 3 substantially reiterate the allegations contained in the complaint. LWs 4 to 7 have, in particular, supported the prosecution case with regard to the alleged concealment of Accused No.1’s medical condition, the intervention of the elders through a panchayath, and the harassment allegedly suffered by the de facto complainant. LWs 8 and 9, who participated in the panchayat, have stated that the de facto complainant complained of cruelty and the alleged psychological illness of Accused No.1, but that the disputes remained unresolved despite the intervention of the elders. At the same time, LWs 4, 5 and 6 have categorically stated that the de facto complainant had never informed them of any harassment by petitioner No.7/Accused No.7.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid material, this Court is of the considered view that the case against petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 stands on a different footing from that against petitioner Nos.2 to 12/Accused Nos.2 to 12. The allegations against Accused No.1 relate to physical and mental cruelty, concealment of his alleged bipolar disorder and vasectomy prior to the marriage, non-consummation of the marriage, demand for additional dowry and cheating. These allegations, as set out in the complaint, find prima facie corroboration from the statements of other witnesses concerning the panchayat and the events that followed thereafter.
11. The contention of Accused No.1 that his medical condition had been disclosed prior to the marriage gives rise to a disputed question of fact. Such a disputed question cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings wherein this Court is exercising its jurisdiction under Section 428 of the BNS. At this stage, the Court is required only to examine whether, if the allegations contained in the complaint and the material collected during investigation are taken at their face value, they disclose the commission of the alleged offences, as held in Manik B (supra). In the present case, the allegations against Accused No.1, taken at face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences. Accordingly, this Court finds no sufficient ground to quash the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.1/Accused No.1.
12. However, insofar as petitioner Nos.2 to 12/Accused Nos.2 to 12 are concerned, the complaint and the charge sheet contain only general and omnibus allegations and do not attribute any specific overt act to each of them indicating their individual involvement in the alleged offences. Significantly, LWs 4 to 6 have specifically stated, insofar as petitioner No.7/Accused No.7 is concerned, that the de facto complainant had not made any allegation of harassment against her. It is also not in dispute that some of the petitioners are residing separately. The prosecution has not placed on record any specific material demonstrating their active or direct involvement in the alleged offences. The legal position in this regard is well settled. In Achin Gupta (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted merely on account of their relationship with him and that vague and omnibus allegations, without specific attribution of acts, are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. The same principle has been reiterated in Geddam Jhansi and Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), wherein it has been held that continuation of criminal proceedings against relatives, who are residing separately, in the absence of specific allegations indicating their active role in the alleged offences, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the allegations against petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 disclose a prima facie case warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings and trial. The allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 12/Accused Nos.2 to 12, on the other hand, are vague and omnibus and are not supported by specific material demonstrating their individual and active involvement in the alleged offences. Permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against petitioner Nos.2 to 12/Accused Nos.2 to 12, in the absence of such material, would therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
14. Accordingly, while the proceedings against petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 are liable to be continued, the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 12/Accused Nos.2 to 12 deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.
15. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 12/Accused Nos.2 to 12 in C.C. No.99 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, are hereby quashed. The proceedings against petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 in the said Calendar Case shall continue in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
